| Revision as of 16:14, 8 November 2013 editSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors279,026 editsm →RfC on Infoboxes: link← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:50, 6 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,385 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/2024/Dec) (bot | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{AutoArchivingNotice|bot=MiszaBot III|small=yes|dounreplied=yes|target=User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/{{CURRENTYEAR}}/{{CURRENTMONTHABBREV}}}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |algo = old(7d) | |algo = old(7d) | ||
| |archive = User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/%(year)d/%(monthnameshort)s | |archive = User talk:Newyorkbrad/Archive/%(year)d/%(monthnameshort)s | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{archive box|]}} | {{archive box|]|age=7|bot=MiszaBot III}} | ||
| ==Merry Christmas== | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 4px solid #bbc7c6;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 2px;" | ] | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2px 2px 0 2px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | | |||
| ---- | |||
| Hello Newyorkbrad, warm wishes to you and your family throughout the holiday season. May your heart and home be filled with all of the joys the festive season brings. Here is a toast to a Merry Christmas and prosperous New Year!. | |||
| '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px black; font-family:Papyrus">]<sup>]</sup></span>''' 13:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| == Happy Holidays == | |||
| == Disambiguation link notification for October 16 == | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 4px solid #FFD700;" | |||
| Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (] | ]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 2px;" | ] | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2px 2px 0 2px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | | |||
| ---- | |||
| '''Hello Newyorkbrad, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this ]. Spread the ] by wishing another user a ] and a ], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. <br />Happy editing,'''<br /> | |||
| ] (]) 04:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ''{{resize|96%|Spread the love by adding {{tls|Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.}}'' | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 11:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| |} ] (]) 04:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! == | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for October 23== | |||
| <div style="height:575px; width:700px; border-style:solid; border-color:#01902a; background-color:#fff; border-width:3px; text-align:left; padding:2px;"><div style="height:560px; border-style:solid; border-color:red; background-color:#fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:6px;" class="plainlinks"><div style="float: left; width: 330px; padding:6px">] {{font|text=We wish you a Merry Christmas,|font=Lucida Calligraphy|size=23px}}<br> | |||
| Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (] | ]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
| ] {{font|text=We wish you a Merry Christmas,|font=Lucida Calligraphy|size=23px}}<br> | |||
| ] {{font|text=We wish you a Merry Christmas,|font=Lucida Calligraphy|size=23px}}<br> | |||
| ] {{font|text=And a Happy New Year!|font=Lucida Calligraphy|size=23px}}</div> | |||
| <div style="float: left; width: 330px; padding:6px"> | |||
| ]May your holidays be filled with peace and joy. Spread the ] by wishing another user a ], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! ] (]) 08:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC) <br /> | |||
| ''Adapted from {{tl|Xmas6}}. Spread the cheer by adding {{tlsu|User:Altamel/Christmas}} to their talk page.''</div> | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 11:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| </div></div> | |||
| :Fixed. Second try on this one (see above). Domi arigato, Mister Roboto. ] (]) 14:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Happy New Year to you, Newyorkbrad! == | |||
| == Wikimedia NYC Meetup- "Greenwich Village In The 60s" Editathon! Saturday November 2 == | |||
| {| style="background-color: |
{| style="background-color:#FFFBC4; border:5px solid #009600;" | ||
| |style="vertical-align: |
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle; padding:4px;" | ] | ||
| |style="font-size:x-large; padding:3px 3px 0 3px; height:1.5em; text-align:center;" | ''']!''' | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Please join ''']''' on November 2, 2013! <BR>Everyone gather at '''Jefferson Market Library''' to further Misplaced Pages's '''local outreach'''<BR>for '''Greenwich Village''' articles on '''the history and the community'''.<BR>--] (]) 21:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align:middle; padding:2px;" |<div class="center">{{fontcolor|green|'''''Hello Newyorkbrad:'''''}}</div><br /><br />'''Did you know ...''' that back in 1885, Misplaced Pages editors wrote Good Articles with ]s, ]s and ]s?<br /> | |||
| Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary ]s.<br><br>] (]) 15:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |} | ||
| {{paragraph break}} | |||
| <!-- EdwardsBot 0652 --> | |||
| :<div style="float:left">''{{resize|88%|Spread the WikiLove; use {{tls|Happy New Year elves}} to send this message}}''</div>{{clear}} ] (]) 15:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == |
== Sat Jan 25: Misplaced Pages Day NYC 2025 == | ||
| {| |
{|style="background: white; color: black; border:1px solid #6881b9; margin:0.5em; padding:0.5em;border-radius: 8px;" | ||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''"Oh my" barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |- | ||
| !colspan=2 style="font-size:150%; padding: .4em;"|January 25: ] | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For humor and invective in one of the most creative ways I've seen in a long time ;) ] (]) 20:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| | |
|- | ||
| | style="padding-left: .6em;" | | |||
| ] | |||
| You are invited to ''']''', hosted by ] at the ]'s central branch. | |||
| I spent far longer laughing at that than I would usually care to admit. :-) --] ] 08:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == October 2013 == | |||
| ] <s>Welcome to Misplaced Pages. At least one of ], such as the edit you made to ], did not appear to be constructive. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the ] which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use ] for that. Thank you.</s><!-- Template:uw-humor--> <small>]</small> 09:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; background-color: #ddd; border: 5px solid #ddd; {{box-shadow|0.1em|0.1em|0.5em|rgba(0,0,0,0.75)}} {{border-radius|0.5em}}">]<p style="text-align: center; margin-bottom: 0;">] ] ]''</p></div> | |||
| :] wrote a children's book on ] ;) | |||
| : I placed my story here, first because November began but it relates to October, but also because of ]'s wisdom (linked under "season"), now archived, unresolved. I will need a course in Arbcomese. The closing statement of the clarification request is an abbreviation of something correct but by abbreviation incorrect, is not an answer to the first question at all (who created an article if not the one who contributed 80% or more of its content?), and not a good answer to the second question (will the addition of any infobox need to be sanctioned because I would want one, so it's "proxying"?). How do I proceed? Please see the end of my talk for some of the consequences of absurdity. It certainly makes for good conversations. I miss ] --] (]) 08:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| The special focus this year will be the launch of our "400 Neighborhoods" campaign for the city's 400th anniversary and ]. | |||
| == RfC on Infoboxes == | |||
| We'll also have ] and you're invited to sign up for one, though space is somewhat limited. | |||
| Hey there. As an uninvolved participant in an ArbCom case on info boxes, I wanted to ask an opinion about this. Since you were the one who proposed a community-wide RfC on info boxes in order to address whether to adopt a policy or guideline addressing what factors should weigh in favor of or against including an infobox in a given article at that arbitration case (which was closed during my two-month long semi-retirement), I was wondering if it's possible to start up the RfC. Any thoughts or ideas about this? Regards, ] (] - ]) 03:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I recall that there was some discussion soon after the case about getting the RfC underway. I am blanking right now on where that took place (or maybe I was hallucinating it), but hopefully someone reading here would know. I think my arbitrator colleague Carcharoth had some thoughts on the issue, so you also might try him. As an arbitrator on the case I don't think I should start or take a leading role in the discussion, but I do anticipate posting some thoughts when it takes place. Regards, ] (]) 14:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::The case left us with unresolved situations like ] ("Ah how fleeting, ah how futile") where someone with courage is needed. How about an arbitrator himself? Or can we establish someone to check if an infobox is good for the project? - An ] but those for whom an infobox is not a harmless tool of information but an attack were against it. See ], --] (]) 15:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Gerda, that is a ''complete'' mischaracterization of both the content of ] and of the views of the editors who contributed to that section, including me. ], I suggest you read that section for yourself as well as the comments elsewhere on that page and . There are some good suggestions for any future RFC on the subject and how to avoid it becoming a train wreck. ] (]) 14:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::That's good advice. I'll look into it. ] (] - ]) 22:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :My brief suggestion would be, please wait until the new year (only 2 months away), and please go immensely slowly, especially at first - the way an RfC is introduced, and structured, is critical for bringing light (instead of heat, and tl;dr problems), to the issues involved. I gave more detailed thoughts at the arbcom case pages. –] (]) 18:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :: As long as we're passing out advice for Sjones23 on launching the RFC, I saw over on his talk page that ] really missed the boat with this: "Arbcom punted the case when it cast it in terms of a project-wide dispute, when it was really more of a localized issue involving about three wikiprojects with overlapping editors (and, of course, Andy on the outside)." No, wrong. May have looked that way to those not following closely because so many folks stayed away because of the nastiness. I don't know if I'd say ArbCom punted the case, but if the perception that they did exists, it was for lack of evidence when they probably rightly sensed that the disruption surrounding infoboxes was a huge issue, and the whole case was a proxy for broader user conduct issues and editor alliances. But no one presented that evidence (I didn't 'cuz I had more important stuff going on in real life and doing it justice would take two weeks of diff gathering). Sjones, if you buy what Mackensen stated, you are less likely to craft a workable RFC that will reach productive conclusions. ] (]) 02:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I like every attempt to speak about infoboxes factually. I am part of an "alliance" (we call it a project) agreeing that ] for readers. I learned the term "attack" ], please excuse me if I misunderstood and simplified too much above, --] (]) 09:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Yes, you are: How's that working out? ] (]) 14:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Timely quote " ... ]'s shenanigans at Featured Articles ... ] 10:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)". ] (]) 15:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: As below: I would learn something if anybody (not only ] and ]) could supply a diff for a "disruptive" adding of an infobox by an active QAI member after (!) that member joined the project :) --] (]) 07:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * Saturday, January 25, 2025 | |||
| I don't think there's much sense in re-fighting an old RFAR. The simple fact of the matter is that I repeatedly asked for proof that this was a true project-wide dispute and none was really adduced. If Arbcom seized on lack of evidence as proof of a broader dispute then they did everyone a grave disservice. There's a raw statistic which might help shed light on this: {{t1|Infobox}} is used on 1.8 million articles, or roughly 41% of all articles on the English Misplaced Pages. Even that number is low as there are plenty of infoboxes which don't use it as a base. If there's truly a project-wide issue I would have expected broader participation in the RFAR and a greater groundswell for RFCs to resolve these matters. None of this is happening, ''because for most people this isn't a controversial issue.'' This is leaving aside the entire question of content re-use and portable data, both of which are pressing matters in web design. Whatever. I spend enough time fighting that battle in my actual job; I'm not going to fight it here, too. You don't have to buy my view that this was ultimately a parochial dispute with a small cross-section of editors. I'm not selling it. I'd rather be editing articles, and the portions of the project I edit aren't disturbed by this intractable problem. ] ] 12:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *:''12:00 pm – 5:00 pm'' | |||
| : Then I'm additionally concerned that you may be out of touch with how people feel about getting involved in arbcases; a (correctly formulated) RFC (vs RFAR) will likely generate more feedback. And that there are 1.8 million articles with infoboxes may not reflect how individual editors working on individual articles feel about them, rather a wiser "pick your battles" issue. I have inaccurate information in medical infoboxes imposed by ] convention upon articles I edit, and I choose not to do that battle. I saw uncited, undue information in FAC after FAC, plopped into infoboxes, and although I refused to promote those FAs, they are promoted today; did that come up in the RFAR? () A productive RFC needs to decide at what level consensus for infoboxes is determined. I have bowed to ] consensus on medical articles in the interest of keeping the peace with other editors I respect, not because I want to spread inaccurate information in articles I edit. We have had extensive discussions about this at ], but you didn't hear about that in the arb case, did you? Who gets involved in an arbcase is not a measure of how extensive the issues are-- particularly when the arbcase involves the amount of and extent of acrimony and factionalism and other issues as that case involved. Further, arbcases are rarely about what they seem to be about on the surface, and the infobox case is a classic example of the case really being about other underlying issues. Perhaps you perceived it involved only three or so wikiprojects because those are the areas the most disruptive editors focused on. ] (]) 14:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *:], Grand Army Plaza | |||
| ::: Please let me understand better: give me a diff for one edit of a QAI member adding an infobox in 2013 that you would describe as "disruptive". --] (]) 20:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *:Afterparty: 6:00 pm – 9:00 pm (off-site venue, TBA) | |||
| ::I agree with Sandy here. The issue is not confined to classical music projects (broadly construed). It is an ongoing source of disagreement in articles on many arts subjects. ], I suggest you read ], which attempted to communicate some of this. Most of the evidence presented by the named parties and observers focused on classical music articles, because that was the flare-up that directly led to the case. However, that gives a skewed view of the situation. Like Sandy, I think that a thoughtfully drafted RfC could provide a much more complete picture and give ''everyone'' a pause for thought, even if it will probably end up reaffirming ]. – ] (]) 15:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::There are two disparate conflicts intersecting under the infobox heading here. The business of Andy pushing infoboxes and music editors resisting had been going on for something like seven years prior to the most recent case, and this may be what he's referring to. This overlaps with WP:QAI's feud with the FAC regulars, which seemed to blow up more recently. (I'd say about 2 years, when TCO brought out his ].) Outside of infoboxes, my impression is that Andy's role in that fight, which encompasses FAs and potential FAs in general, has been peripheral, rather than central. | |||
| ::Anyway, I think the argument that because X number of articles have an infobox, uncontentiously, and Y number of people are not complaining, is based on a fallacious premise: that the use or non-use of an infobox should be determined on an encyclopedia-wide basis, like the use of reliable sources. Some subjects are very well-suited to infoboxes (say, chemistry); other subjects tend to suffer when crammed into key-value pairs, particularly in the humanities. I'd contend that the controversy centers on the music-related projects not because they happen to be hopelessly parochial, but because they have both a subject matter that's not very well expressed in infoboxes and an editor base well-knit enough to coherently resist that tool being forced on them. Of course, there won't be visible conflict in areas where infoboxes work well with the subject matter, which are many, nor where the editor base is spread too thin to register organized resisting (as in Sandy's example of WP:MED above). ] (]) 17:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::: I don't disagree with any of this, and I've read ]'s evidence. I don't think infobox use should be determined on an encyclopedia-wide basis. Hence my question as to what, exactly, is the purpose of this RFC? As I said on my own talk page: " Projects that use infoboxes use infoboxes. Some don't. An RFC which either tried to impose them on those which don't want them or conversely tried to remove them from projects which did want them would probably be considered invalid." I also said this: "Crafting a binding content guideline regarding templates sounds like the source of endless controversy and I'm unconvinced that it's a wise use of anyone's time." Seriously: what exactly is anyone looking to accomplish here? ] ] 22:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::: While I agree with the general gist of the comments by ] and ], Choess's analysis misses a fair chunk of history. The issues spread by a small but vocal minority of editors in the FA process (leading to the departure of numerous writers, reviewers, delegates, technical support people, and the FA director) pre-date TCO's "report" by a few years, and he was but a small part in a bigger situation that unfolded. The only real significance of the TCO "analysis" was that he exempted certain editors (cf ] post linked above, where he describes said FA writers) from the same criticism he made of other editors (ie, alliances, if I like you and you're my friend I won't criticize your cookie cutter FAs that you used to climb the ] greasepole). <p>And, Andy's role should be viewed in the context of other assaults made on FAs to promote personal stylistic preferences by like-minded technical editors, and the effect that (and the alliances) had on the FA process. Keep in mind that in most historical lame technical style issues, style warriors attack FAs first (in one recent case, moving from one sock to another to escape detection and achieve maximum changes to FAs without detection, aided, fyi, by some arbs), because they believe that if they can install their personal preferences in FAs, they will achieve trickle down to other articles. Same happened with the date-delinking debacle, the stylistic citation preferences furthered by a ] and his associates, and in the infobox wars. Whether Andy's role was peripheral or central, FAs are often a first target, which is why most of the FA community has long known just what was going on. <p> In response to Mackensen, it doesn't strike me that you are reading what is on this page any more than Gerda is; diffs are there, please read them. There is still disruption, there is still proxying, and there are still undefined issues about infoboxes. I hope you will work to understand those issues, and realize that Misplaced Pages is not the same place it was five or eight years ago. It is much nastier, and it is much harder for the arbs to get a handle on things, so they perhaps have made a decision to limit the scope of cases, and focus only on the worst offenders in each case. ] (]) 16:12, 8 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| |- | |||
| == Right location for ArbCom discussion? == | |||
| |''All attendees at Wikimedia NYC events are subject to the ].'' | |||
| |} | |||
| Hey NYB - I was wondering what the right place would be to raise discussion of an old ArbCom subject. Specifically, we're coming up on the three-year anniversary of Case/Abortion, at which point some of the remedies expire. –] (] ⋅ ]) 13:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :It depends on exactly what you think needs to be done, if anything. If it's just an informational post that the remedies will expire soon, the requests talkpage or the article talkpage might be the right place. If you think that extension or modification of the remedies is necessary (and can support that with evidence and you believe other editors would agree with you), then you could file a request for clarification or amendment. If you think the ArbCom remedies should be succeeded by community-based remedies, then I suppose that would go on WP:AN. If any other arbitrators are watching this page, please feel free to add your thoughts. Regards, ] (]) 14:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think some of the expiring remedies should be extended. Where would I file a request for clarification/amendment? –] (] ⋅ ]) 16:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::Roscelese, what do you see as expiring in ]? There was a provision allowing admins to apply semiprotection on abortion related articles and talk pages , which protection may not extend beyond December 2014 by my count, on any one article. The whole topic area remains under discretionary sanctions indefinitely. The DS provision could itself be used to impose longer semiprotections if needed. There does not seem to be any imminent change in the system established by Arbcom that might cause concern. It is regrettable that the Arbcom-endorsed RfC on the article titles seems to have . The new article names, once they were agreed on by an RfC, were ]. ] (]) 19:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The semiprotection is what I'm most concerned about. There are tons of minor pages in this topic area that get disruptive attention from IPs. I also noted the article names provision, but hopefully the article name fight won't start up again; it's seemed pretty quiet. –] (] ⋅ ]) 19:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Articles can be semiprotected, where warranted consistent with the protection policy, even after the formal ArbCom remedy expires. ] (]) 19:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| <small>(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from ].)</small> | |||
| ==Correction== | |||
| Just wanted to make one correction to your statement on the Noticeboard talk page. I never took a position on the Manning article name change, either for or against. I did not participate in the move discussions. I just presented evidence of what I perceived to be open activist involvement in the matter. ] (]) 23:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Noted. Regards, ] (]) 00:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
| --] via ] (]) 17:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ==Peter David== | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Pharos@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Meetup/NYC/Invite_list&oldid=1263682194 --> | |||
| Hey, Brad! I didn't know you were or comics! Are you a fellow comics reader like me? ] (]) 05:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:50, 6 January 2025
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Merry Christmas
|
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025 |
|
Hello Newyorkbrad, warm wishes to you and your family throughout the holiday season. May your heart and home be filled with all of the joys the festive season brings. Here is a toast to a Merry Christmas and prosperous New Year!. scope_creep 13:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC) |
Happy Holidays
|
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025! |
|
Hello Newyorkbrad, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
A1Cafel (talk) 04:41, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!
Adapted from {{Xmas6}}. Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:User:Altamel/Christmas}} to their talk page.
Happy New Year to you, Newyorkbrad!
|
Happy New Year! |
| Hello Newyorkbrad: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Misplaced Pages editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. |
- Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message Wil540 art (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Sat Jan 25: Misplaced Pages Day NYC 2025
| January 25: Misplaced Pages Day | |
|---|---|
.jpg) You are invited to Misplaced Pages Day 2025, hosted by Wikimedia NYC at the Brooklyn Public Library's central branch. The special focus this year will be the launch of our "400 Neighborhoods" campaign for the city's 400th anniversary and WikiProject New York City/400 Task Force. We'll also have a lightning talks session and you're invited to sign up for one, though space is somewhat limited.
| |
| All attendees at Wikimedia NYC events are subject to the Wikimedia NYC Code of Conduct. | |
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)
--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)